The German Football League (DFL) has intervened in the dispute between the parent club Hannover 96 and the professional football manager Martin Kind. The hearing before the district court in Hanover is scheduled for this Tuesday.
The “Neue Presse” and the “Bild” quote before the start of the process (11.30 a.m.) from a letter they have from the DFL legal advisor Jürgen Paepke, which is to be understood as a clear warning to the 96-majority shareholder Kind. The DFL insists on the club’s “unrestricted right to issue instructions” to the capital side. In the case of the second division soccer team, this is “an essential requirement that the structure is still considered compatible with the 50+1 rule”.
The 50+1 rule only applies to German professional football and is intended to ensure that the registered parent club retains decision-making power even if it has spun off its professional football department into a corporation. It limits the influence of external investors.
Kind: Only the supervisory board of Management GmbH could have dismissed him
The 78-year-old child is Hannover 96’s managing director and majority shareholder of the professional football operation. In order to do justice to the 50+1 rule, there is still Hannover 96 Management GmbH, which decides on the management of the outsourced GmbH & Co. KGaA and is 100 percent owned by the parent association. Kind had recalled the leadership of Hannover 96 eV as managing director of Management GmbH in July, against which he is now defending himself in court.
His argument: A contract between the club and the capital at Hannover 96 stipulates that not only the club, but only the Supervisory Board of Management GmbH should have been allowed to dismiss him. And there are two representatives from each side on this supervisory board. What is piquant about it is that if the child were to be right in court, the 50+1 rule at Hannover 96 would be practically overridden.
Because then the parent association would no longer have the right to issue instructions. In this case, “the compatibility of the Hannover 96 contract with the 50+1 rule is clearly in question, especially if the shareholders’ meeting cannot effectively enforce the right to issue instructions to a managing director who is bound by instructions,” according to the DFL.
